Disasters, 2002, 26(4): 343–355

© Overseas Development Institute, 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishing, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Do Farmers Need Relief Seed? A Methodology for Assessing Seed Systems

Catherine Longley Carlos Dominguez

ODI/Intl. Crops ICRISAT Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT)

Momade A. Saide Wilson José Leonardo

ICRISAT ICRISAT This article outlines a methodology to help agencies better determine whether or not relief seed is needed by farmers affected by disaster. A brief review of current seed needs assessment procedures in southern Somalia and Mozambique illustrates problems of knowing which crops and households are affected, the importance of seed access (not just availability) and the need to plan interventions earlier than at present. The development of a Seed Systems Profile (SSP) is proposed to understand better both the socio-economic and agro-ecological aspects of farmers’ seed systems. A five-step framework for assessing seed systems in disaster situations is also presented. These tools are currently being tested and further refined in Mozambique. A better understanding of farmers’ seed systems will allow for the development of relief and rehabilitation interventions that effectively enhance the resilience and reduce the vulnerability of these systems. Keywords: Somalia, Mozambique, Seed Systems Profile, assessment.

Introduction

Existing guidelines on emergency seed provisioning (e.g., ODI, 1996; Johnson, 1997; Chemonics Intl., 1996) recognise the need to determine first whether or not relief seed inputs are needed by farmers affected by conflict or natural disaster. However, they contain very little in the way of detailed, practical advice on exactly how to do this. Usually because of inadequate prior assessment, many seed interventions are based on an assumed rather than an actual need for seed. There are certainly situations in which farmers do need seed, and appropriate and timely seed inputs can bring very significant improvements to agricultural production and food security. Yet there are also an increasing number of studies showing that some emergency seed interventions have very little impact in relation to their high cost (Jones et al., 2001; Longley et al., 2001). Although the ability of agencies to implement relief seed projects has improved markedly over recent years, the rationale on which such projects is based is now coming under question (Jones et al., this volume). Contrary to assumptions, farmers’

C. Longley, C. Dominguez, M.A. Saide and W.J. Leonardo

344

seed systems are remarkably resilient, even in the face of severe natural disasters or war (Friis-Hansen and Rohrbach, 1993; Longley and Richards, 1998; Sperling, 1997). Unless such systems are better understood, there is a risk that repeated relief seed interventions may inadvertently work to weaken rather than strengthen farmers’ seed systems.

This article addresses the present lack of adequate techniques for assessing the need for seed system support in protracted emergencies and disaster-prone areas. It describes a method, Seed System Profiling (SSP), which can be used to compile information about the ways in which farmers manage the seed of various different crops. When used in conjunction with an assessment framework such as that in Box 2,1

SSP information allows for a better understanding of the impact of a disaster on seed systems. The tools presented in this paper are currently being tested and further refined in Mozambique.

Present approaches to seed needs assessment

In general, there is a wide range of assessment approaches and procedures, each suited to different types and stages of an emergency situation and the requirements demanded by the assessment. This article is primarily concerned with detailed ‘one-off’ assessments (suitable for protracted emergencies) and longer term monitoring (suitable for repeated acute or chronic stress situations) (see Jaspars and Young, 1995).

Southern Somalia

In the 10 years following the fall of the Siad Barre regime in 1991, between 2,000 and 4,000 metric tonnes of cereal and pulse seed was distributed on an annual basis in southern Somalia in response to political insecurity, drought and floods (Longley et al., 2001). The quantity of seed needed was calculated in relation to food needs, which in turn is determined by relative vulnerability. Vulnerability is assessed by the Food Security Assessment Unit (FSAU)2 using the Household Food Economy Approach (see Seaman et al., 2000).

FSAU has defined a total of 20 Food Economy Areas across Somalia which describe the different types of terrain (riverine, pasture, highland) and the various forms of livelihood (pastoral, agro-pastoral, agricultural), together with the dominant crop or livestock types in each area. Baseline profiles of each of these Food Economy Areas have been undertaken, detailing the ways in which households of different wealth groups normally obtain their food and other income. The FSAU uses the baseline information contained in the food economy profile for analysing monthly and seasonal data on areas planted, production and yields, livestock conditions, income-generating activities and coping strategies (Nisar Majid, pers. comm.). Levels of vulnerability are assessed according to the nature of the external shock (drought, flooding, political insecurity, price fluctuations) and the relative ability of local communities to cope with these shocks.

While the information collected by the FSAU relates largely to food security, it has also been used by the FAO to determine seed security: areas which were found to be food insecure were also deemed to be seed insecure. Calculations regarding the actual quantities of seed required were made according to figures released by the FSAU

A Methodology for Assessing Seed Systems 345

on the harvest output together with numbers of vulnerable households and the average seeding rates of different crops. It was generally assumed that if a harvest was good, the need for seed distribution was low; if a harvest was poor, the need for seed increased.

Mozambique

Emergency seed inputs have been provided to farmers in Mozambique almost every season for over a decade (Rohrbach et al., 2001), initially in response to the civil war (1976–1992) and, more recently, in response to both drought and floods. Responsibility for regular data collection at national level is held by the Early Warning Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. There have been changes to the monitoring system over the years,3 and both the methods and organisational structures relating to the national monitoring system are currently under revision.

Despite changes taking place at national level, there exist clearly defined assessment procedures at district level. The following description is based on information collected by the authors through interviews with district agricultural staff and farmers in 11 districts (see Saide et al., 2002). Once an emergency situation has been reported within a district, it is taken for granted that seed will be needed and the district agricultural officer is expected to recommend the crops and quantities of seed required. Quantities of seed required are determined by the number of farming households affected by the disaster. Information is compiled by local community leaders, based on existing household lists, and usually verified by district field staff. Existing data tables detailing the proportional areas planted with different crops in the district indicate the crops for which seed is required. Information from the data tables, together with average farm size and standard crop seeding rates are used to calculate the quantity of seed needed. Examples of these procedures are provided below.

Critique

From the brief descriptions above, a number of similarities and differences in the existing needs assessment techniques can be distinguished. In both countries, existing monitoring systems manage a wealth of data of direct relevance to the assessment of seed security, but at present this information is not immediately accessible to those responsible for assessing whether or not relief seed is required.

In Somalia, the need for food aid is the key variable in determining the need for seed among agricultural populations; although FSAU regularly collects a considerable amount of information that usefully relates to seed, there is no explicit assessment of seed need (Buzz Sharp, pers. comm.). In Mozambique, there is a clear procedure for determining seed needs at district level, in which the key variable is the number of farming households affected by the crisis. Both in Somalia and Mozambique, the assessment exercises start from the assumption that seed will be needed, and the data collected are merely used to calculate the quantities of seed required and how these should be targeted. The possibilities that farmers either already have seed of their own or can acquire seed locally and therefore do not need seed aid, or that other types of external support might be more appropriate, are simply not considered under present assessment processes.

C. Longley, C. Dominguez, M.A. Saide and W.J. Leonardo

346

Problems of knowing which crops and households are affected

The use of crop data tables in Mozambique — at least in theory — assumes that all crops are equally affected by disaster (DDADR-Moamba, 2000; DDADR-Chibuto, 2001). In Matutuine District, for example, once the number of affected households is known, the cultivated area affected by the disaster is calculated according to an average household farm size of one hectare. Using the crop data tables, the areas of the different crops that have supposedly been affected are then determined. Cropping systems differ, however, for the upland and lowland areas. Thus, the crops affected will largely depend on the type of disaster: for example, floods affect the lowland crops, whereas drought primarily affects the upland crops.

In Machaze District, Mozambique a meeting with community leaders4 responsible for determining the number of households affected by the crisis revealed that while it was relatively easy for them to know which households were affected by flooding (namely, those situated in low-lying areas without access to upland farms), this was considerably more difficult in a drought situation. The leaders were not able to articulate the precise criteria used in these decisions, but it is thought that the poorer households were deemed to be the most needy. When referring to seed security, the issue of access is vital and must be made more explicit in seed needs assessment exercises (Remington et al., this issue).

Issues of access, availability and timing

Although the issue of access is widely recognised as an important component of food security, it has yet to be fully recognised as a component of seed security (see Remington et al., this issue). In Somalia, although access to food is used by the FSAU is determining food requirements, the ways in which farmers access seed did not feature at all in the assessment of seed needs. Instead, the use of harvest data implies that the immediate availability of seed was paramount in determining seed security. However, this fails to take into account the ways in which farmers normally save and acquire seed. The amount of seed saved by a household does not depend on the size of the harvest but rather on the amount to be planted the following season. If, in a crisis situation, the household is unable to save seed, there are mechanisms through which seed can be acquired from local traders or other farmers.

The way in which seed needs have been assessed in Somalia in recent years requires that crop harvest data are available before the quantity of seed aid can be determined. Given that there are two main planting seasons, by the time the harvest data are available, it is practically too late to procure seed for the forthcoming season. This last-minute planning can be avoided by developing a greater understanding of the ways in which farmers maintain and acquire seed at local level, thus allowing an agency to predict (prior to harvest) whether or not external seed inputs are likely to be required. The ways in which farmers manage seed and planting material is referred to as the local or farmer seed system,5 and is here summarised in terms of an SSP.

Seed Systems Profile (SSP)

Field staff members often have some knowledge of local seed systems, but this must be documented and used more explicitly in planning interventions. A failure to

A Methodology for Assessing Seed Systems 347

understand how local seed systems operate may lead to seeds-and-tools interventions that inadvertently undermine these local systems over time. In the longer term, the ability of farmers to respond to and cope with disasters depends partly on the resilience of the local seed systems. The capacity of local seed systems must therefore be given greater significance by relief and rehabilitation managers so that external assistance effectively strengthens, not weakens local seed systems (Longley, 2000).

In order to develop a greater understanding of the ways in which farmers maintain and access seed, it is suggested that an SSP be developed. This is best done prior to an emergency, and can very feasibly form part of a disaster preparedness strategy. The main questions to be answered in developing an SSP are shown in Box 1.

The questions in Box 1 deal with not only agro-ecological and technical considerations but also socio-economic aspects of agricultural production and seed management. As such, a seed system has been described as a socio-technical ensemble (Richards and Ruivenkamp, 1997). The socio-economic and agro-ecological aspects of seed systems are elaborated further in Box 1.

Socio-economic aspects

How farmers use different crops and different varieties can provide important information relating not only to the availability of seed but can also help to understand the dynamics in cropping systems due to insecurity and changing market conditions associated with disasters. For those crops that are sold (even in very small quantities), planting material may be available to farmers in local markets, either as grain that can Box 1 Questions to ask when developing a Seed Systems Profile

• What crops and crop varieties are planted by farmers, and how are these used (for food, for sale, as forage, etc.)?

• What are the main features of the cropping system, i.e. in what ecologies are the crops planted, what is the cropping calendar for the different crops and crop types and who (i.e. men or women) is responsible for various agricultural tasks?

• For each crop, do farmers normally save the seed from the previous harvest? How is seed saved and what are the main constraints?i

• If seed is not saved, how do farmers normally acquire the seed for the different crops (where,ii through what means,iii from whomiv)?

Notes: i. The term ‘seed saving’ covers more than just seed storage and includes seed production, seed

selection and processing. Seed production is generally regarded by farmers as a component of agricultural production, i.e. seed multiplication takes place within farmers’ fields, not as a separate activity. If farm size is exceptionally small, it may be difficult for farmers to produce enough for both food and seed; theft may be a problem where there is population displacement and inadequate means to secure fields and seed stores.

ii ‘Where’ might refer to whether seed is accessed within the settlement, from neighbouring settlements or from local markets.

iii. The means through which farmers acquire seed might refer to whether seed is bought for cash, exchanged (e.g. for labour, for grain or other seed), borrowed (to be repaid either with or without interest at harvest time) or provided as a gift (generally through existing social networks based on relations of reciprocity).

iv. Farmers might acquire seed from relatives or other farmers, from petty traders, or (rarely) from formal sector sources (e.g. extension agents, seed suppliers or projects). It is important to know whether those providing seed tend to be male or female.

C. Longley, C. Dominguez, M.A. Saide and W.J. Leonardo

348

be used as seed, or as seed/planting material. Farmers tend to take much greater care of the seed of crops that are not normally sold, and ‘farmer seed specialists’ often exist within communities. Such specialists are often able to maintain the seed of different varieties of such crops, even under very extreme crisis conditions, thus providing a source from which other farmers can acquire seed that they themselves may have lost.

Labour is often the main constraint to agricultural production, both in ‘normal’ situations and in times of stress, particularly in situations when some household members are displaced, conscripted or killed. In situations of chronic conflict, labour inputs to agricultural production are generally reduced and farmers often find it difficult to control pests and diseases, thus reducing harvest outputs. By constructing cropping calendars in relation to the main labour tasks and who is responsible for specific agricultural activities (planting, weeding, seed selection and processing, seed storage, seed acquisition), it may be possible to predict how seed systems will be affected in relation to the timing of the crisis and the impacts it may have on local populations, particularly in terms of changing household compositions. Knowing whether men or women are responsible for specific tasks may also help to target appropriate interventions according to gender roles. In many agricultural communities, it is often women who are responsible for seed selection and storage.

It is necessary to answer the third and fourth questions of Box 1 as they relate to different wealth groups. Three levels of household seed security have been defined according to relative household wealth (Cromwell, 1996): seed-secure households are usually better off and are able to save their own seed for planting but may use off-farm sources (from relatives, neighbours and markets) in order to experiment with new varieties; crisis-prone households are seed secure in most seasons but less well off, so a situation such as harvest failure or death or illness in the family can force them to augment their own saved seed with that acquired from markets and other, more seed-secure farmers; chronically seed-insecure households are poorly resourced (small farm size, and a shortage of labour resources) and so in most seasons are unable to harvest sufficient crops to meet both seed and domestic consumption needs. Chronically seed-insecure households regularly rely on acquiring seed through loans that are repaid after harvest, as gifts from better-off farmers, or by exchanging their labour for seed. Farmers who are least seed secure in ‘normal’ times also tend to suffer the most in terms of reduced access to seed in times of crisis (Longley, 1998).

Agro-ecological aspects

In describing the crops and crop varieties and on what ecologies they are grown (e.g., lowland or upland fields or plots situated near the homestead), particular attention should be given to the relative diversity of the cropping system and the range of choices available to farmers. The resilience of both agricultural systems and seed systems is at least partly determined by the ability of farmers to change their cropping patterns, for example, by substituting crops or varieties according to local constraints and opportunities, or by relying on alternative agro-ecologies in the situation that a specific ecology or field type is rendered unproductive or unusable.

Predictions concerning the impact of a crisis on particular crops and seed systems can be made by assessing the type, timing, duration and extent of a disaster in relation to local crop calendars and cropping patterns. As mentioned above, a natural disaster such as drought or flood will have greatest effect upon those crops growing in the particular agro-ecologies affected. In the case of flooding, the planting material of

A Methodology for Assessing Seed Systems 349

Table 1 Seeding and multiplication rates of particular crops Crop Seeding rate (kg/ha) Multiplication rate Beans 100 8 Groundnut 120 6–10 Cowpea 90 15 Barley 100 15 Wheat 100 25 Rice 20 (upland), 80 (swamp) 50 Maize 20 100 Sorghum 10 100 Pearl millet 5 200

Source: ODI Seeds and Biodiversity Programme, 1996: 41. some crops (e.g., cassava) can withstand prolonged waterlogging, depending on their level of maturity when disaster strikes; other crops can be ‘rescued’ and re-planted on higher ground, as reported by farmers in Matutuine District, Mozambique. In war situations, the broad scale of crop and seed losses can be assessed in terms of the actual time that farmers are prevented from farming and at what periods of the agricultural calendar (Longley, 1998; Pottier with Wilding, 1994). If farmers are able to harvest their crops, then at least some seed will be available, even when the output is very low. A total lack of seed within a community is thought to be extremely rare, occurring primarily following seasons in which farmers have not planted anything at all and markets are not functioning. This happened in the vicinity of Baidoa, southern Somalia in 1992–3 when there was widespread displacement; farmers were living in the bush and it was not possible to farm for a period of two years (Longley et al., 2001).

The capacity of seed systems to recover following disaster can be remarkably rapid, particularly if there is sufficient and timely rainfall to allow a good harvest. Those crops with high multiplication rates and low seeding rates (that is, grain crops such as millet and sorghum) have the potential to recover within a single season, because the output is relatively high and the amount of seed required for the following season is relatively small (see Table 1). Legumes, on the other hand, generally tend to have lower multiplication rates and higher seeding rates, and it may take several seasons for the seed system to recover fully. In situations of chronic conflict, farmers are often able to continue to farm although they may experience difficulties in maintaining or accessing the seed of legumes. Not only do legumes have lower multiplication rates and higher seeding rates, the stored seed is generally more susceptible to pests such as weevils. Where external support is to be repeated over more than one season following an emergency, priority should be given to those crops that farmers find most difficult to manage, for example beans, groundnut, cowpea.

The ability of farmers to save seed or planting material also depends on which part of the crop is consumed. In the case of cassava or sweet potato, for example, it is the roots and tubers that are eaten; the planting material comes from the stems and is therefore unlikely to be consumed by the household in times of food shortage. The same is true for vegetables such as pumpkin, cucumbers and tomatoes, in which the seeds can be removed before consumption. In some cases, however, crops that might normally be eaten when they are green (e.g., beans, peas, okra) must be maintained on the farm until they are completely dry in order to produce viable seed.

C. Longley, C. Dominguez, M.A. Saide and W.J. Leonardo

350

Assessing the need for seed system support in a disaster situation

An SSP can be used as a baseline to both predict and understand the impacts of disaster on seed systems. Many of the variables necessary for assessing the need for seed system support following an emergency situation have already been mentioned above, namely the features of the crisis (type, timing, duration, scale and intensity), and the socio-economic impacts on local populations (displacement, changes in household composition). Other important aspects that also need to be considered are the functioning of local markets, the mobility of both farmers and traders (in relation to security and transport systems), and the assets available to farmers, including their ability to draw on existing social networks.

The ways in which these different types of information can be used are summarised in the framework presented in Box 2. The framework consists of five steps that must be undertaken in order to understand: the characteristics of the disaster; the impact on harvested output; seed availability; seed access; and the problems to be addressed. For Steps 1–4 the first column of the framework highlights the basic questions to be asked, and the second column identifies the sources of information that can be used in answering the questions specified, using existing information, information from the SSP and information that can be collected from the field. The framework also provides an indication of the ways in which the information might be interpreted, based on recent field experience in various different African contexts. Box 2 Five-step framework for assessing seed systems affected by disaster7

Step 1 Characteristics of the disaster Questions to be asked Sources of information What is the type of disaster, its relative frequency over time, duration, extent, onset, and timing? What areas have been affected, both geographical and agro-ecological? Are these areas that have been affected by similar disasters in the past? What are the direct impacts of the disaster, particularly on transport systems and market infrastructure? Has there been any large-scale population displacement, either from or to areas of crop production?

Ongoing monitoring systems will describe the disaster and provide an indication of its geographical scale. Rapid assessments undertaken by individual agencies, coordinating bodies, and/or government departments will report the direct impacts of the disaster, the degree to which local transport and market infrastructure are still functioning, and levels of population displacement. Additional micro-level information may need to be collected from the field, where possible.

Indications from Step 1: The situation can be defined as either a chronic or acute disaster. In chronic disaster situations, it may be necessary to identify and address the underlying causes of potential seed insecurity through longer term interventions (i.e. beyond emergency seed relief). The SSP can usefully identify constraints within the seed system that might need to be addressed.

Step 2 Impacts on harvested output Questions to be asked Sources of information At what phase of the agricultural calendar has the disaster occurred? Which crops — planted at which times and in which agro-ecologies — have been affected?

The SSP provides detailed crop calendars and information on which crops are planted in which agro-ecologies. This can be supplemented with cropping data that might be available through on-going monitoring systems or from existing baseline

A Methodology for Assessing Seed Systems 351

How severely have these crops been affected, i.e. what was/will be the level of harvested output? (Remember to take account of local coping strategies, e.g. harvested output of the same crops planted at different times and/or in different agro-ecologies.)

surveys. Existing agricultural research reports will also provide background information on cropping systems. Information on the extent to which crops have been affected by the disaster can be found from ongoing monitoring systems. Where possible, this information should be verified or supplemented by field visits.

Indications from Step 2: A situation is which there is no harvested output at all is very rare. Different crops will be affected differently, and although the harvest for some crops may be very small, it is likely that at least some farms will produce something. Farmers prefer to plant seed from their own harvest than that from unknown sources.

Step 3 Seed availability Questions to be asked Sources of information Will/have farmers been able to save seed or planting material of the affected crops? What are the seed system constraints and relative multiplication rates of the crops for which seed saving may be affected? For the seed affected, where and how do farmers normally acquire seed of these crops, and is seed/planting material available from these sources?

Basic agronomic knowledge of different crops, together with details from Steps 1 and 2 will help to determine whether farmers will have saved seed. The SSP provides information on seed system constraints, ‘normal’ seed saving and seed acquisition practices. The scale and geographical extent of the crisis, together with SSP information from neighbouring areas will help to determine the availability of seed in nearby locations.

Indications from Step 3: If farmers have been able to harvest their crops, seed will generally be available, even if the harvested output is very low. Where household stocks of own-saved seed are limited, it is possible that seed or grain suitable for planting will be available within the wider community, neighbouring communities and/or local markets.

Step 4 Seed access Questions to be asked Sources of information Are the sources of available seed physically accessible? For example, are markets functioning within reasonable proximity, and is there transport that will allow farmers to visit markets or other communities with seed/planting material? If seed/planting material is available and physically accessible, do farmers in the affected areas have the means (financial or otherwise) to access this seed?

Other emergency assessments should indicate the extent to which transport systems and markets are functioning. Ongoing monitoring systems will indicate the levels of household asset loss and vulnerability, and (where market information is available) the relative price of grain and seed/planting material in local markets. Social networks play an important role in allowing farmers to access seed from other farmers — details of this are provided by the SSP.

Indications from Step 4: If seed is available, it is likely that at least some better-off farmers will be able to access seed, but that poorer farmers may have problems accessing seed. Breakdown of transport infrastructure and/or markets may make it difficult to transport seed from surplus to deficit areas.

Step 5 Identifying problems to be addressed The answers to the above four steps can be summarised in terms of problems to be addressed: For each crop affected, is there a problem of seed and, if so, does this problem stems from lack of availability or lack of access? Prioritise the problems according to the crops for which seed systems have been most severely affected. Indicate which types of farmers in which areas are likely to have problems of seed availability and/or access. Prioritise the problems according to whether they need to be addressed in the short term (i.e. the forthcoming planting season) or the long term.

C. Longley, C. Dominguez, M.A. Saide and W.J. Leonardo

352

The framework is based on the assumption that considerable information will already be available, either from existing early warning information and monitoring systems or from other more general assessments that will likely have been undertaken by operating agencies. Where possible, it is also necessary to supplement or verify existing information with field visits to observe farms and markets and talk to both farmers and traders. An additional source of relevant background information rarely used by relief and rehabilitation managers is the findings of agricultural researchers. For most countries, there is often a large body of literature (both published and unpublished) dating back to colonial times describing local agricultural systems, agricultural constraints and efforts made to overcome these constraints. Even in countries affected by prolonged conflict where government offices and agricultural research stations housing such reports have long been destroyed, the former agricultural researchers themselves can often be traced either within or outside the country, and it is often possible to locate extensive collections of documents.6 In the case of Afghanistan, US researchers have been able to compile a well-informed strategy for emergency seed supply based solely on existing documents, survey information, and key informants (Dennis et al., 2002). In protracted emergencies, there is a need for researchers to compile and present relevant agricultural research information in a format that is useful to relief and rehabilitation managers.

Once the problems to be addressed have been identified, appropriate interventions can be designed that effectively build on the strengths and address the weaknesses of local seed systems. With a clearer understanding of the problem, the objective of the intervention will then be more clearly understood, thus allowing for better planning and targeting.

Suggestions for practical applications

The SSP, together with the steps outlined in Box 2, can be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of seed systems affected by disaster and highlight appropriate interventions. Ideally, the SSP should have been developed prior to a disaster, but can also be developed during the course of a protracted emergency or following an acute disaster, provided that it is possible and appropriate to gather information from farmers. The framework presented in Box 2 should be implemented following a disaster, or as a first step in planning for seed aid and/or other agricultural interventions.

Given that many of the types of information necessary for an SSP and assessment of seed system support are already being collected by existing monitoring and early warning systems, it would not take much additional effort to implement the methods described in this article. SSPs can be undertaken at a local level by individual agencies in the course of baseline studies, or can be incorporated as a module into national-level monitoring systems. Once an SSP has been developed for a given administrative area or even the Food Economy Areas defined by the Household Food Economy Approach, an assessment can be undertaken by local government authorities or implementing agencies in the aftermath of a disaster to determine the ways in which local seed systems will have been affected.

A Methodology for Assessing Seed Systems 353

Closing remarks

There is an urgent need for donors and operational agencies to move beyond emergency seed supply to provide alternative forms of assistance that more accurately reflect the needs of farmers affected by disaster. The development and use of suitable assessment tools is just one step in this direction. The methodological approach described in this paper is presently being tested on a pilot scale and further refined by ICRISAT and ODI in Mozambique (ICRISAT-Mozambique, 2002),8 where conventional seeds-and-tools interventions have been implemented for many years and some agencies are now beginning to recognise the need for change. Even if the assessment approach described in this paper proves to be applicable at a purely technical level, its effective application in disaster situations and associated changes to conventional practice depend largely on the political will of the donors, coordinating bodies, implementing agencies and government departments concerned with agricultural relief, rehabilitation and development.

Acknowledgements

The inputs of Tom Remington, Richard Jones, and Paula Bramel are fully acknowledged in developing many of the ideas presented in the article. Thanks also to Richard Jones and Mohamed Hussein Ahmed (‘Sufi’), both team members of the Somalia seed sector study, commissioned and funded by a grant under the European Community Development Cooperation. Comments on the paper were gratefully received from Louise Sperling (CIAT), Rob Tripp (ODI), Elizabeth Cromwell (ODI), Jo Macrae (ODI), Helen Young (Tufts University and ODI), Alison MacColl (FAO-Somalia), Buzz Sharp (FSAU-Somalia), Nisar Majid (formerly FSAU-Somalia), Jean-François Detry (formerly CIS-Mozambique) and John Seaman (SCF-UK). Funding for the development and testing of the methodology in Mozambique was provided by the USAID mission in Mozambique. The authors are particularly grateful to the staff of DDADR and NGOs in Massinga, Panda and Chibuto districts who have been involved in testing the methodology in Mozambique.

Notes

1. The framework presented in Box 2 is not considered to be definitive. The seed security assessment framework presented by Remington et al. (this volume) offers a slightly different perspective in that it usefully emphasises aspects of seed and varietal quality. We gratefully acknowledge their collaboration.

2. The Food Security Assessment Unit was initially established under the auspices of the World Food Programme and is currently managed by the FAO, funded by the European Commission and USAID-Somalia. FSAU works closely with FEWS-Somalia and WFP-Somalia, among other partner agencies.

3. The Early Warning Unit was originally established with FAO assistance in 1989. In 1992, the Food Security Consolidated Information System (CIS) was established by Médecins Sans Frontières to provide timely analysis on household vulnerability and community needs (AEDES, 1996). CIS continued to operate with technical support from the Agence Européene pour le Développement et la Santé (AEDES) until 2001. FEWS NET is also currently operational in Mozambique.

C. Longley, C. Dominguez, M.A. Saide and W.J. Leonardo

354

4. The authors are grateful to Emidio Felipe Paulino of Concern Worldwide for organising the meeting with leaders in Chipopopo and allowing the ICRISAT team to participate.

5. The farmer seed system is also sometimes called the informal seed system (Dominguez, 2001) to distinguish it from the formal seed system. The latter includes the development, multiplication and dissemination of new seed varieties by plant breeders, projects and seed companies in both the private and public sectors. In times of crisis, the formal seed system generally ceases to operate effectively.

6. For southern Sudan, there was such a wealth of information that ICRISAT contracted a Research Assistant to visit UK libraries housing archival collections and the offices of Norwegian Church Aid in Norway to review the reports available (Slaymaker, 2001a, 2001b). Several former Sudanese researchers were found working for local agricultural authorities and NGOs in southern Sudan, and some former British colonial agricultural researchers were traced through the Tropical Agricultural Association.

7. This framework draws on the work of Tom Remington (see Remington et al., this volume) whose inputs and collaboration are gratefully acknowledged.

8. Guidelines for developing the SSP, assessing seed systems in disaster situations and develop-ing appropriate interventions are available in Portuguese and English from Carlos Dominguez (C.Dominguez@cgiar.org).

References

AEDES (1998) Food Security Consolidated Information System in Mozambique. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Maputo.

Chemonics Intl. and USAID (1996) Seeds for Disaster Mitigation and Recovery in the Greater Horn of Africa. Report submitted by DEFSIL Project of USAID/G/ENV/ENR to USAID/BHR/OFDA/PMPP, Washington.

Cromwell, E. (1996) Governments, Seeds and Farmers in a Changing Africa. CAB Intl. and ODI, Wallingford.

Dennis, J., A. Diab and P. Trutmann (2002) The Planning of Emergency Seed Supply for Afghanistan in 2002 and Beyond. A draft paper for the Tashkent conference. Available at www.afghanseeds.org.

Direcção Distrital de Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural (DDADR)-Chibuto (2001) Plano face a tragédia. DDADR, Chibuto.

Direcção Distrital de Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural (DDADR)-Moamba (2000) Informe sobre o início da campanha agrícola 2000/2001. DDADR, Outubro, Moamba.

Dominguez, C. (2001) Sistema informal de sementes, causas, consequências e alternativas. Centro Cultural de Matalana, Maputo.

Friis-Hansen, E. and D. Rohrbach (1993) SADC/ICRISAT 1992 Drought Relief Emergency Production of Sorghum and Pearl Millet Seed: Impact Assessment. Working Paper 93/01, ICRISAT, Hyderabad.

ICRISAT (2002) Guia para planificar intervenções no sistema local de sementes. ICRISAT-Mozambique/INIA, Maputo.

Jaspars, S. and H. Young (1995) General Food Distribution in Emergencies: From Nutritional Needs to Political Priorities. Good Practice Review, No. 3, RRN, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Johnson, D. (1998) Distributing Seeds and Tools in Emergencies. Oxfam, Oxford. Jones, R., C. Longley, T. Remington and P. Bramel (2001) Seed Security, Seed Relief and

Alternative Interventions in Southern Sudan: Preliminary Findings from the Project Seeds for Survival: Increasing the Effectiveness of Emergency Seed Security in the Greater Horn of Africa. ICRISAT/ ODI/CRS, Nairobi.

—— , P. Bramel, C. Longley and T. Remington (2002) The Need to Look Beyond the Production and Provision of Relief Seed: Experiences from Southern Sudan. Disasters 26(4): 302–15.

A Methodology for Assessing Seed Systems 355

Longley, C. (1997) Effects of War and Displacement on Local Seed Systems in Sierra Leone. In L. Sperling (ed.) Network Paper No. 75, AgREN, Overseas Development Institute, London.

—— (1998) Seed Management Strategies of Farmers Affected by War: A Case Study from Northern Sierra Leone. Report to ESCOR, DFID, London.

—— (2001) Beyond Seeds and Tools: Opportunities and Challenges for Alternative Interventions in Protracted Emergencies. Humanitarian Exchange No. 18, HPN, Overseas Development Institute, London.

—— and P. Richards (1999) Farmer Seed Systems and Disaster. In Restoring Farmers’ Seed Systems in Disaster Situations. Plant Production and Protection Paper 150, FAO, Rome.

—— , R. Jones, M. H. Ahmed and P. Audi (2001) Supporting Local Seed Systems in Southern Somalia: A Developmental Approach to Agricultural Rehabilitation in Emergency Situations. Network Paper No. 115, AgREN, Overseas Development Institute, London.

ODI Seeds and Biodiversity Programme (1996) Seed Provision During and After Emergencies. Good Practice Review 4, RRN, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Pottier, J. with J. Wilding (1994) Food Security and Agricultural Rehabilitation in Post-war Rwanda, August–September. Report to SCF-UK, London.

Remington, T., J. Maroko, S. Walsh, P. Omanga and E. Charles (2002) Getting Off the Seeds-and-tools Treadmill with CRS Seed Vouchers and Fairs. Disasters 26(4): 316–28.

Richards, P. and G. Ruivenkamp, with contributions from R. van der Drift, M. Gonowolo, M. Jusu, C. Longley and S. McGuire (1997) Seeds and Survival: Crop Genetic Resources in War and Reconstruction in Africa. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.

Rohrbach, D.D., J. Low, R. Pitori, A. Cucu, J. Massingue, D. Boughton, G. Rafael, A. Paulo and D. Jocene (2001) Investment Priorities for the Development of Mozambique’s Seed System. Directorate of Economics Research Report No. 44E. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Maputo.

Saide, M., C. Dominguez and W. Leonardo (2002) Procedimentos utilizados na avaliação das necessidades em sementes em situaçőes de emergência. INIA/ICRISAT, Maputo.

Seaman, J, P. Clarke, T. Boudreau and J. Holt (2000) The Household Economy Approach: A Resource Manual for Practitioners. SCF UK, London.

Slaymaker, T. (2001a) Literature Review of Agricultural Research Conducted in Southern Sudan Post-1945. Consultancy report for ICRISAT/CRS/ODI seed study, Nairobi.

—— (2001b) Review of Norwegian Literature on Agricultural research in Southern Sudan. Consultancy report for ICRISAT/CRS/ODI seed study, Nairobi.

Sperling, L. (ed.) (1997) War and Crop Diversity. Network Paper No. 75, AgREN, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Address for correspondence: Catherine Longley, Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JD. E-mail : <<k.longley@odi.org.uk>>